ML20004F524
| ML20004F524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1981 |
| From: | Finkel A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004F521 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-79-01B, IEB-79-1B, NUDOCS 8106190012 | |
| Download: ML20004F524 (35) | |
Text
m;;i y,
?"
g :
i ENVIRONMENTAL _ QUALIFICATION 0F SAFETY-RELATED ELECTRICAL-EQUIPMENT IEB 79-018 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT PEACH BOTTOM 3 DOCKET N0. 50-278 DATED: NOVEMBER 1980 Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company Type Reactor: BWR, General Electric Company Size: - 1065 MWe Prepared by Alan E. Finkel Engineering Support Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch, RI
-8106I'900I1
,, e Contents Page 1.
Introduction...............................................
1.1 General...............................................
2.
Background and Discussion..................................
2.1 General................................................
2.2 On-Site-Verification Inspections......................
2.3 Evaluation of Licensee's Report.......................
3.
General Information........................................
3.1 Identification of Class IE Electrical Equipment.......
3.2 Service Conditions....................................
3.3 Qualification Documentation...........................
4.
Technical Evaluation.......................................
4.1 Identification of Safety Related Equipment........
4.2 Master List...........................................
4.3 Service Conditions...................................
4.3.1 Inside Containment LOCA.....................
4.3.1.1-Radiation..............................
4.3.1.2 Submergence..............
4.3.1.3 Chemical Spray.........................
4.4 High Energy Line Breaks (HELB)........................
4.4.1 HELB Inside Containment......
i 4.4.2 HELB Outside Containment....................
4.4.3 Recirculated Fluids.........................
l 4.5 Margins..............................................
l 4.6 Aging........................
4.7 Documentation...................
4.8 Site Verification Inspection..........................
4.9 Equipment Data Review.................................
~
4.10 Conclusions...........................................
5.
Licencee Event Reports (LERs)..............................
6.
References................................................
Appendix A, Test Reports and Analysis Lists................
Appendix B, Equipment Status Lists.........................
Appendix C, Licensee's Exceptions..........................
Appendix 0, TMI Modifications..............................
1.
Introduction 1.1 General The NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement (I/E) issued Bulletin 79-018, " Environmental Qualification of Class lE Equipment" in January 1980.
This bulletin required the licensee to perform a detailed evaluation of the environmental qualification on Class IE electrical equipment required to function under postulated accident conditions and to submit a report on this action.
This document is a report on the evaluation of the licensee's response to this bulletin.
2.
Background and Discussion 2.1 General The evaluation of the licensee's response was accomplished by per-forming an on-site inspection of selected class 1E equipment and by examining the licensee's report for completeness and technical' accuracy.
The licensee's report used in this evaluation is dated October 31, 1980, and therefore, does not include the response to the bulletin supplement which was issued on 9/30/80 in the form of Generic Questioni and Answers.
2.2 On-Site Verification Inspections The on-site inspection, made on selected lE equipment, verified proper.
installation of equipment, overall interface integrity, location with respect to flood level for equipment inside the containment, and manufacturers nameplate data.
The manufacturer and model number from the nameplate data was compared to information given in the Component Evaluation Work Sheets (CES) of the licensee's report.
If any discrepancies were noted between the installed equipment and the correspondent equipment addressed in the licensee's report, they are discussed in Section 4.8 of this report.
The site inspection is documented by report number 50-278/80-25.
2.3,Evaluatian of Licensee's Report Each component as addressed on the Component Evaluation Work Sheets (CES) of the licensee's report was examined for completeness and accuracy to the criteria given in the bulletin.
This axamination assumed qualification documents (analysis, test reports, etc.)
referenced by the licensee in their submittal are acceptable.
The results of this examination are documented in Appendix 8.
4
cv 4
3.
General Information 3.1 Identification of Class 1E Electrical Equipment The licensee's list of systems was compared to the systems list i.ssued by the Equipment Qualifiestion Branch (EQB) and discussed in section 4.1 of this report.
It is recognized that there are differences in nomenclature of systems because of plant vintage and engineering design, therefore, many of these systems may not exist or have different titles.
These differences will be addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) that will be prepared for this site.
3.2 Service Conditions The service condition accident environment, llELB/LOCA ir. side contain-ment and IIELB outside containment are inulicated or discussed in the licensee's report and are based on the FSAR accident analysis and section 4.3 of this report.
3.3 Qualification Documentation Appendix A is a list of documents (test reports, analysis, letters, etc.) used by the licensee in detennining the environmental qual-ification of plant equipment for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3.
These references have been tabulated by the licensee and are indicated on the applicable CES of their report.
4.
Technical Evaluation The basis for the technical evaluation is the information provided by the licensee, Philadelphia Electric Company, for the Peach Bottom 3 site 3 and the inspection of the as-installed equipment of the fligh Pressure Coolant Injection System which is located outside of the containment, IE Inspection Report 50-278/80-25.
Utilizing the information identified in the inspection of Peach Bottom 2 (IE Inspection Report 50-277/80-17) and the licensee's submittal,3 the reviewer assessed its adequacy in relation tu the DOR guidelines,6 NUREG7 0588, and the supplement 4 to IEB 79-01B which provides the Commission's requirements and starf position.
The quality control measures utilized by the licensee included using exper-ienced consultants to perform the tasks required by IEB 19-01B.
Independent technical overview of each part of the effort was performed by the licensee's engineering staff.
In addition, an extensive review of the final response and sign-off approvals by various levels of the licensee's engineering management was required.
1 I
I l
l 1
e
+
' 4.1 Identification of Safety-Related Equipment The< licensee reviewed his documentation to establish the systems required to achieve a safe shutdown or provide isolation for the -
events identified in IEB 79-01B.
These systems were then evaluated against the DOR guidelinas.. The systems identified and included in this evaluation are:
- 1.
Main Steam and Feedwater 2.
Automatic Depressurization 3.
Reactor Protection 4.
Control Rod Drive 5.
High Pressure Coolant Injection 6.
Residual Heat Removal Low Pressure Coolant Injection Mode Torus Cooling Mode Shutdown Cooling Mode 7.
Core Spray 8.
Standby Gas Treatment 9.
Containment Atmosphere Dilution 10.-
Steam Leak Detection 11.
Radiation Monitoring 12.
Emergency Service Water 13.
Primary Containment Isolation 14.
Electrical Power The list of systems _ including those that were excluded was provided to the Equipment Qualification Branch-(EQB).
The EQB compared the list to a "Q" list developed by the staff.and to the lists provided by similar facilities to determine the completeness of the licensees response.-
Based on the information provided by the licensee and the reviewers comparison 2, it has been determined that the systems identified are within the guidance provided in Section 3.0 and Appendix A of the DOR Guidelines and are acceptable with this exception:
1.
"Q" List The acceptability of the licensee's list in paragraph 4.1 will be.
evaluated by the Equipment Qualification Branch (EQB) and addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) to be issued by February 1981.
i y
qm~--
w.
-q me-_
y e-m,-
a m-
- +-- - -
,y
4.2 Master List The licensee developed a master list based on his system evaluation as required by IEB 79-01B. of the licensee's 90 day response includes a list of references which provided the basis for including or excluding specific components / equipment from having a detailed data work sheet as required by IEB 79-01B.
We have reviewed the supporting basis for the inclusion or exclusion of equipment provided in the references and have concluded that the licensee's letters of March 3, 1980, April 15, 1980 and June 17, 1980 are acceptable.
4.3 Service Conditions 4.3.1 Inside Containment LOCA The licensee provided temperature and pressure profiles for the peach Bottom 2 containment resulting from a LOCA. These curves, FSAR Figures 14.6.11 and 14.6.10 are included in the licensee's 90 Day Response Report.
The maximum environments identified are:
Temperature:
2900F Pressure:
42 PSIG Humidity:
100% R.l!.
Chemical Spray: NA Radiation: 1.8 x 107 The delay time from the event to the initiation of safety injection for the spectrum of breaks is indicated in FSAR profiles figures 14.6.11, 14.6.10, Q5.5.6a and Q5.5.6b and IEB 79-01B 90 day submittal.
Depending on the system combinat used, the service conditions in the containment will return to levels that existed prior to the event in less than 30 minutes.
4.3.1.1 Radiation The 1.8 x 107 Radiation level 3 id(ntified by the licensee is less than the 2 x 107 radiation level identified as acceptable in the DOR guidelines, Section 4.1.2.
The licensee data sheets indicate that for qualification testing radiation levels higher than the 1.8 x 107 level were used.
Components that were tested for less than the required level of radiation will be listed in the Appendix B section of this report.
e The reviewer has concluded that the above information is acceptable.
The staffs position in relation to radiation analysis is provided in the second supple-mer ';4 to IEB 79-01B.
In addition, the supplement expanded the scope to include the environmental effects on electrical equipment being evaluated in accordance to NUREG-0578.
4.3.1.2 Submergence The licensee identified no equipment below the flood level in the IEB 79-01B response.
4.3.1.3 Chemical Sprav The licensee stated that no chemical solutions are used in systems required for the accidents presently under consideration.
The consideration of chemical sprays is included in Section 4.9 of this report.
4.4 liigh Energy Line Breaks (IIELB) 4.4.1 IIELB Inside Containment The licensee has stated, in their letter of August 26, 1980, that each class IE equipirent item located in primary containme was reviewed against the LOCA profiles which are provided in the FSAR and against a 3400F tlain Steam Line Break (t1SLB) temperature.
FSAR question 5.5.6 identifies NEDO 10320 as the analytical model used to evaluate the Loss of Coolant Accident conditions.
In the absence of a specific plant t1SLB environmental analysis, the 3400F criteria of the Division of Operating Reactors guidelines was used in consideration of the specific equipment operating time requirements.
The acceptance of this approach by the licensee is considered unresolved and is classified as a category IV item.
4.4.2 IIELB Outside Containment l
l The licensee in their August 19, 1980 IEB 79-01B update l
included the revised environmental equivalent room tabulations The programs that were used to generate the data for the l
various areas outside containment are listed in Philadelphia l
Electric Company's References 62, 63, and 65, Appendix A.
l l
We have concluded, based on the profiles representing the HELB conditions outside cyt.tainment that the licensee meets the requirevients of the DOR guidelines, Section 4.3.1.
The acceptability of the licensee's basis for specific equipment subjected to HELBs outside of containment is included in Section 4.9 of this report.
4.4.3 Recirculated Fluids The licensee indicated that the hostile environments, BLP 21544PBAPS Environmental Conditions Radiation Dose Study, in the various areas containing post LOCA recirculating flows have been reviewed and included as part of the above reference-study.
The acceptability of the parameters identified and the basis for specific equipment qualifications are incinded in Section 4.9 of this report.
4.5 Margins The D0R Guidelines indicate that special cor. sideration was given to the time required to remain functional when establishing the criteria in Section 5.2 of the guidelines.
The normal operating temperature inside containment is approximately 1200F and the profiles indicate that the temperature returns to 1200F within 27 hours3.125e-4 days <br />0.0075 hours <br />4.464286e-5 weeks <br />1.02735e-5 months <br /> of the event.
NUREG-0588, Section 3(4), requires that a type test be for a minimum of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> in duration when the functional l
requirement is within the first seconds or minutes of an eveat and the DOR guidelines, Section 5.2, requires that the test duration be at least as long as the period from initiation until the service conditions return to the level that existed prior to the event.
Therefore, any type test that exceeds the functional operability time by I hour or longer meets the requirements defined in NUREG-0588 and the DOR guidelines for margin in relation to test duration for this facility.
The other consideration identified in the D0R guidelines in relation to the methods of qualification, other than identified specitically in this report will be addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) which will incorporate an audit of selected analysis and test reports identified in Appendix A.
=
e 4.6 Aging The licensee indicated that a study of the components subjected to harsh environments is still an outstanding item.
Details of the licensee's effort is included in their submittal 3.
Tne licensee has identified the components which are still listed as requiring data.
The DOR guidelines, Section 7, does not require a qualified life to be established for all safety-related electrical equipment, however, the following actions are required:
1.
Detailed comparison of existing equipment to the materials identified in Appendix C of the D0R guidelines. The first supplement 4 to IEB 79-01B requires the licensees tc utilize the table and identify any additional materials as the iesult of their effort.
4 2.
Establish an ongoing program to review surveillance and main-tenance records to identify potential age related degradations.
3.
Establish component maintenance and replacement schedules which include considerations of aging chsracteristics of the installed Compo;sens.
We, therefore, require that the licensee provide the details of a program which will include a continuing effort to obtain data on existing materials and address the actions identified above.
In addition, we require the licensec provide a schedule for implementation of the program that identifies problem components.
4.7 Documentation The second supplement 4 to IEB 79-01B and the order,5 No. CLI-80-21, requires the licensee have the documentation and data identified in the detailed worksheets wi'.ch supports the qualification of the safety related electrical equipment available for NRC audit. The second supplement 4 identifies the type of information required and the location where the records are to be maintained.
The staff requests the licensee provide a response to the order and supplement which discusses their compliance and identifies any deviation Reference Appendix C of this report.
[
I
4.8 Site Verification Inspection An inspection of the installed components associated with the High Pressure Coolant Injection System was conducted on October 28-30, 1980 at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3.
The details of this inspection are documented in IE Inspection Report 50-278/80-25.
The detailed identification of the components and the observations recorded will be addressed in the SER which will incorporate an audit of selected analysis and test reports referenced in Appendix A.
4.9 Equipment Data Review The equipment listed in Appendix B is the status of the latest data submitted by the licensee in their response to IEB 79-01B. Appendix B identifies the licensee data 3 in a formate that allows the reviewer a quick look status of each listed component.
The first four columns are self explanatory while the next three columns are defined as follows:
Environment - The listing in 'ais column identifies the environment that appears to have some question as to whether or not its in compliance with the requirements of the licensee.
Category - As listed below a category I through V has been assigned to the environment for a specific component or group of components as listed.
Remarks - The remarks column was used to identify the environmental condition associated with the category number, or identify the system location when the licensee indicated that data was being looked for or an analysis was in progress. An example of this lack of data environment information in the licenseee submittal is the requirement for aging.
The equipment has been listed and identified in ore of the following categories:
I Qualified for Plant Life II Qualified With Restrictions III Exempted From Qualification IV Qualification of Equipment Unresolved, and V Equipment Not Qualified The number in the ( ) in the component block on the table indicates the number of identical components listed, but may have a different title within the report.
Except for equipment being in different room locations, which is identified by the licensee, the equipment appears to be the same in both units 2 and 3.
4.10 Conclusion This evaluation is based on the on-site inspection, the information supplied by the licensee in their submittal 10,their FSAR, and the assumption that the Qualification Documentation (Test Reports, Analysis, Letters, etc.) are acceptable.
The Region I reviewer usir.g the guidance 9 and instructions 8 for the evaluation of licensee's data submittals and the site verification inspections that were perforced to verify the IE Bulletin 79-01B, January 1980 data submittal information, finds the licensee to be in accordance with the NRC direction 4,5 except as listed in Appendix B ar.d C of this report.
The results of this evaluation does not necessarily imply that the equipment is unreliable, unsafe or represents a significant safety issue; it does imply that additional information is required and that the items in Appendix B and C will be evaluated by the Equipment Qualification Branch (EQB) and addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) to be written for this licensee by February 1981.
5.
Licensee Event Reports (LERs) 5.1 The following LER was submitted and documented as follows:
Reference:
Docket Nos.
50-277 and 50-278 Report No:
LER 2-80-8/IT Report Date:
May 1, 1980 Occurrence Date:
April 17, 1980 Reported:
To Resident on April 17 and 22, 1980 Facility:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power S'.ation, RDI, Delta, PA 17314 Description of Event Preliminary calculations associated with high energy line breaks as requested in IE Bulletin 79-01B indicated that guillotine failure of the HPCI steam supply piping in the outboard isolation valve room would result in a peak prersure (12 psig) within the room which is in excess of the capabilities of the concrete block wall (7.2 psig).
Unit 2 and 3 are of similar design.
A more refined analysis shows that the calculated peak pressure in the outboard isolation valve room of 5.01 psig (4.97 psig if the steam line isolation valves are throttled to 75% closed).
Since the ultimate wall pressure capability based on the type of anchor bolts used is approximately 7.2 psig, safety factor of 1.4 exists.
The inspection of the results of the licensee corrective action will be discussed in IEB 80-11.
p<,
-- ( -
6.
References 1.
IEB 79-01B, Memo to V. Thomas (NRC) from A. Finkel (NRC) dated May 2, 1980.
2.
EQ Sranch Compari' son of systems and parameters.
Philadelphia Electric Company, Revised and Updated Response to IEB 79-01B, dated August 19, 1980.
4.
Supplement Infornation to IEB 79-01B, dated February 29, 1980, September 30, 1980, and October 24, 1980.
~
5.
Order requiring licensees implement requirements of Commission Memorandum and Order of May 23, 1980 (CLI-80-21).
6.
Division of Operating Reactors (DOR), " Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of Class IE Electrical Equipment in Operatir; Reactors", Enclosure 4 to IEB 79-01B.
7.
NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety Related Electrical Equipment", dated December 1979.
8.
Inspection Requirements for Verifying Reactor Licensee Responses to IE Bulletin No.79-01B, dated April 25, 1980.
9.
IE Support and Review of Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment at Operating Reactors, dated October 10, 1980.
10.
Philadelphia Electric Company, Responses to IEB 79-01B, dated March 3, 1980, April 15, 1980, August 26, 1980, and October 31, 1980.
i i
i i
.r
?
APPENDIX e
TEST REPORTS AND ANALYSIS LISTS l
l l
I I
1
1.
Res 5-3 (Qualification Drywell Equipment) 2.
G.E. Co. Cover letters G-llE-8-198 and G-lie-9-106 3.
ASCO letter 8/17/78 4.
Franklin Institute Test Report F-C5022-1 5.
Franklin Institute Test Report F-C5022-2 6.
Franklin Institute Test Report F-C2750 7.
G.E. Co. Cover Letter G-IIE-8-153 8.
Vendor Print #6280-E106-ll3-1 9.
G.E. Co. Cover Letter G-I!E-8-54 10.
Vendor Print #6280-E40-124-2 11.
a.
Limitorque Test Report 600198 b.
Limitorque Test Report 600376 c.
Limitorque Test Report 600376A d.
Limitorque Test Report B0003 12.
Franklin Institute Test Report for Pyle-National Co. F-C3451 13.
G.E. Co. Cover Letter G-IIE-7-154 (FDI-123) 14.
Rosemount Test Summary #3768A 15.
Rosemount Report #37327B 16.
Burns Engineering Certified Drawing #10528 17.
Deleted 13.
Deleted 19.
Deleted 20.
Deleted 21.
Deleted 22.
Deleted 23.
Deleted 24.
Deleted 25.
Deleted 26.
FSAR Fig. 14.6.10 and Fig. Q.5.5.6a 27.
FSAR Fig. 14.6.11 and Fig. Q.5.5.6h 28.
Bechtel Power Corpoi " ion Study 29.
FSAR Section 14.6.3.
2 30.
Special Study-Operating Requirements for Safety-Related Equipment 31.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE79013 32.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE79019 33.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE79020 34.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE79022 35.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE79023 36.
G.E. Co. Environnental Qualification Test Summary-NSE79024 37.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE80002 38.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualificat ion Test Summary-NSE80003 39.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE80004 40.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE80005 41.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSEP0006 42.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE80008 43.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE80010 44.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE800ll 45.
G.E. Co. Environmental Qualification Test Summary-NSE80012
m Ji
- 46. 'Amerace Corp. Test Report QTR-TR-2 Rev. A
-47.
G.E. Co. Cover Letter G-HE-9-146
- 48. -Qualification of Firewall III Class IE Electrical Cable Report July 7, 1977 49.
Rockbestos ~ Company letter from G. S. Buettner to J.' J. Ferenescik
- 50. - Franklin Institute Test Report F-C4033-3
'51.
FSAR Table 6.5.1 52.
FSAR Section 14.6.5.1.2
- 53. FSAR Figures 6.5.1 through 6.5.23 54.
FSAR Section 5.3.4
- 55. Amerace Letter to N. J. Wood (5/13/80) 56.
Amerace Spec. EGP 57.
GECO Licensing topical report-NEDO-21617-A 58.
GECO data sheet 22A1378AB 59.
ELMA letter to W. W. Bowers (3/15/77) and Telecon to Mr. Ryland of ELMA (2/25/80).
60.
Viking test report #30592 and Telecon to L. Hane of Topaz (6/7/76) 61.
Limitorque letter to W. II. VanBuskirk 2/22/80
'62.
BLP 21568 PBAPS Environmental Conditions LOCA temperatures BLP 21606 PBAPS Environmental Conditions IIELB' Temperatures 63.
BLP 21544 PBAPS Environmental Conditions Radiation dose study
- 64. Appendix "C" NRC Bulletin 79-OlB 65.
PBAPS MAX LOCA/IIELB pressures
- 66. ASCO letter to W. H. VanBuskirk 6-6-80 67.
FSAR Table 7.3.1 68.
Rosemount Test Report #12777D 69.
ASCO Test Report #AQS-12678/TR, Rev. A 70.
Qualification of NAMCO Controls Limit Switch Model EA-740 dated 2-22-79 71.
Letter from S. L. Daltrof f to B. H. Grier 72.
IIVAC Design Criteria for Reactor Building, 8/21/73.
73.
BLP-21679, Equipment TID 74.
FSAR Supplement 1, Section 7.1.7 75.
QSR 002-A-01, 002-A-02.
l 76.
Rosemount Analysis-DJT 77.
ASCO Analysis (Thermal)-DJT, 10/20/80 l
78.
ASCO Analysis (Ifumidity)-DJT, 10/20/80 79.
GECO NEDO-10698 80.
Physical Sciences Analysis-WJC, 10/20/80
[
81.
GECO Specification 22A2928 Rev. 1.
l 82.
SLD Analysis-DJT, 10/21/80
.j 83.
QSR-080-A-01 84.
Target Rock Corporation Analysis-A. Spector, 10/22/80 1
85.
Bechtel Specification 6280-M-242 J
86.
Delphi Catalog 201-A
- 87.. EPRI NP-1558 Project 890-1 Final Report, 9/80 88.
QSR-027 89.
QSR-037 y-
..w.
o
.o 90.
QSR-029-A-01 91.
QSR-032-A-01 92.
UL-510 93.
3M Research Report-3410175001-003 94.
3M Report 54C3082 95.
QSR-111 96.
Agastat Analysis - AS, 10/27/80 97.
Dwyer Bulletin E-50
.M 4
4-
-.M--
a
=~-
a a
4,,
.,2-4.4,_
O
-APPENDIX h
B i,
i EQUIPMENT STATUS LISTS I
i i
i L
i i
4 4
i l
Legend:
, 'j f.,
~
Notes
'.?
The notes referenced in the/gemarks column of the component evaluation work sheets (CES)'.r,eference the licensee's Notes Nos. I through 33.
R_e fe rences The references identified in the remarks colu'n are those listed in Appendix A Nos. I through 97.
l i
Itrt/
Cont f",'
inviron-Remarks gr:a1 raent unt tat m ry Co'Tonent m nuf.
lN ouT Przssure Switch (2)
Earksdale B2T-H X tqing IV I4cte 1 Requires date of analysis fros licensee.
55 1
Radiation IV Note 3 Pretsure Switch (8)
Earton 2P.8 I
Aging IV Note 1 Requires date of completion frtn Itcensee.
Level Indicating Switch Yarway 441P4 1
Aging IV
'4ote 1 Pequire date of analysis frcs Itcensee.
(2)
S et.'fication required 15 minutes. Qualification test was for Level Indicating Switch Roseront 51000 X
Time V
t (1) 1 Mur. Note licensee c m xnts in Argendix C.
Pilot Solenoid Valve (11r Autoa-s tic AVC-C-X Aalnq IV Note 1 Require date of analysis from Itcensee.
Vale: Co.
3450 00 4-Valve Actuator Limitorque SMB-000 X
Te perature IV Note 7 AirManifold(4)
Gutematic X
Aging IV Note 1 Fequire date of analysis iro licensee.
/
Valve Co.
/
Solenoid Valve (Air)(7)
ASCC 18300 X
Tiw V
Specification requires 10 seconds operating. Cualification test wis for 10 seconds. Did not reet I hour test titre.
G
,e
.,e e
==+-w
=w e ra
- -=ww-
=p
=- = = ee w = = + eymeeman e
l Part/
fontaf2 Enviro 2-Resurks
%vst Manuf.
e 9,y r:ent l'en t
- N7 j
IN c>>T Inverter (2)
T0FAZ 500GIR X
Aging IV Note 29 Power Supply (2)
LLPA 5965-3, 4 X
Tire IV halification tine not specified.
Aging IV tete 29 Pressure Switch (12)
Static 12N-AA4 X
Tirre IV Note 1 Fequire date cf analysis frore licensee.
Ring Fressure IV Note 4 e
Scienoid Valve (2)
GEC0/ASCO HVA-9040-X Time V
Srecification requires 60 seconds of qualification test
'T 5-2J l
was for EO seccrds. Did not ecet I hr requirement.
C-
-+.s e -
Pressure Switch (4)
'a rk sdale PlH-M340 X
Radiation tv Note 17, Rer;uire date of analysis from licensee.
55-V Agirg Note 1J Pressure Switch (14)
Static.0 N.A43 x
Padiation IV Note I} Require date of aralysis frem if censee.
Note 3 Ring Aging IV Flew Switch (3)
Barton 289 X
Radiation IV Note 3 7 Pequire date of aralysis fron licensee.
Aging IV Note 1 J m w Flow Transmitters GfC0 553122 X
All IV thte 13 Q
Note 3} Require date of analysis from licensee.
Level Switch (2) bbertshaw 13035.A2 X
Radlition IV Mote 1 Aalng IV O
- 23 E
3==
r-
14rt/
' Lontafx!
Estwiron-Cr. mark s cent rent Dat g Component Kinuf.
[ggial 173 CUT HPCI Fessp/ Turbine (2)
GECO X.
All IV Note 13
,.2:
Diff. Press. Ind. Switch Barton 2E8A I
Radiation IV hote 3 (6)
Note 1]J Regaire date of aulysis fron Ilcensee.
t., ?ce w -
4 h Tire IV Specification required test tire of 101 days. Qualifi-Em*
cation time was 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
'y j c, m
'1s t
.s s,
Purcp Hotor (4)
GECO SK6348 X
Radiation IV IAlte 3 Require date of analysts from licensee.
Valve Actuator (6)
Limitorque SMB-2-40 X
All IV Note 7 Valve Actuator Limitorque SMB-4-200 X
Pediatien IV tbte 3 Requirc date of analysis from licensee.
Valve Actuator ti,itorque SFB-4 X
Tenrera ture IV Note 20 Require date of inspection fro:n licensee.
9'C D m
ValveActuator(2)
!'S-4-150 X
All IV Note 1 ValveActuator(2) limitorque SMB-5T-350 X
All Note 7
%N-N-
7Y
- - = gum,-
e==
e =
- ww-...
em--,..p
..g.
I Ct,ntain' inviron-Remarks Pert /
Canponent tunu f.
(grial wn t ment a encry Ett CUT Valve Actuator (2)
Lim'orque SMC-3 00 X
All IV Note 7 Diff. Press. Switch (20)
Dwyer
!627-1
[
Tire IV Note 6, 23, 30
..;.J' ienp IV Note 23, 30 Pressure IV Note 23. 30
_ - ~.
RH IV Note 23, 30 Require schedule from c.
Radiation IV Note 3, 23, 30 licensee.
- = -
Aafng IV
- iotes 1. 23. 30 f g, "-
6 - g*g
%d Pneumatic-Elect Switch Johnson P-7230 X
Note 9 Require schedule from Ilcensee.
I,Z')
(2)
.vy an -.
. m:
g fleater American X
Tine IV Note 22 Air Filter Termerature IV Note 22 Pressure IV Note 22 R!!
IV Hote 22 Radiation IV Notes 3, 22 Aning IV Notes 1, 22 L
Fan Motor (2)
GECO
$V326 X
Tine IV Note 13 Tey IV Note 13 Pressure IV Note 13 Ri1 IV Note 13 Padiation IV Note 13 Aging IV Notes 1, 13 D
D 2:=.
r==~
I Pcrt/
ContcIn - Instron-Recarks Id1 ment runt Dat N ry CooTonent Panu f.
IN CUT Solcnold Valve (19).
A500 8315 I
TI-e V
5pecification for tiee as 15 e.inutes. f t.e qualification Solenoid Yalve (4)
ASCO 8329 X
tire was'15 minutes.
Solinoid Valve (19)
ECO 830054-3 X
Tire Y
5pecification for tira was I minute. The qualtf tcation 4,-
B30CG51 X
Tire V
test tire was I ralnate.
+ -
Analyztr Rick (4)
Comsip/
Kl X
Aging IV Note 1 ReTJire date of analysis from licensee.
Del hi f
.~
a <,
.,M Temperature Ele +ent (78)
Purns
'I A l -5's 1
All IV 0;alification was performe.! using the analysis cethod for all r
Engineering 2A-DUAL environments. Reference licensee nos. 62 and 82.
C+,
- rp 4
Radiation Eler.:ent (8)
C[C0 194Y927 X
T ir.e IV Notes 6. 13 Ter.p IV Note 13 Pressure IV Note 13 RH IV Note 13 Radiation IV Note 13 Q
Aging IV Note 13 1
T Area Cooler (18)
Joy. H.Y.
1000 X
All IV hotes 3?, 15. Raquire schedule frta licensee.
Forter g
l2==
r--
o e
e.
+
e.
m.
w.,
e...
Environ-Remarks g
P rt/
Containf rwnt t&tenory CTwnt mnof.
d< rts) nent IN CUT Control Station Switch GECO CR-2940 1
Radiation IV Note 3 Fequire date of analysis from licensee.
L'B203W mM r
Tin Delay Relay (4)
Avastat All IV Note 30 Pegaire schedule from IIcensee.
_ ' ^
AUX Relay (63X Systen)(4)
GECO CR120 I
Pauiation IV Note 31 Require schedule frun licensee.
' A..-
Ag f r.g Note 3!
' ". '. " ^,
wn.aa
,~.
Valve Actuator Linitorque SME-000 X
Te perature V
Note 18 Require schedule from licensee. Plant ID No.
N0-2-13-15.
f[.
,f Mq Air Operated Solenoid Attor s tic DYNO X All lv Note 9 Pequire schedule from licensee Valve 644 Atkomatic DYNO X All IV 644S Total of (15) Valves.
Atko ra t ic DYNO X All jv 63 k, low Voltage Power - (8)
GEC0 100 Aqing IV Note ]
Require schedule frcm licensee.
Centrol Penetration
- E:3 3==
r-
- n 4h SS Part/
Contanz' Environ-Remarks Datznory Copponent snuf.
<* rial mmt ment r.3 i
tH our
- Load C. Inter (4)
ITE X
Tire IV Note 6 i
Tenp IV Nate 14 Fressure IV f40te 14 Require schedule from Ilcensee.
RH IV k te 14 Radiation IV Mote 14 Aging IV Note I
,1-Motor Control Center (8)
- utler/ Ham-Unitrol X
Tire IV Note 6 mer Typa B Teg IV Note 14
~[
Fressure IV hote 14 Require s & dr,le from Ilcensee.
RH IV Mote 14 N
Padiation IV Note 14
<g Aoirg IV Note 1
.. ~ -
Teminal Blocks 1arathen 1600 I
X Acing IV Note !
Sealant Scotch Scotch / rot.X X
Aging IV Note 1 Require schM ale from licensee.
Tape Scotch 70 X
X Aoing IV Note I Terminal Blocks GECO CR-151 1
X Radiation IV Note 3 Aging IV Note 1 Require schedule froci licensee, e
m llllC llllC r--
n h
e
..a-
-.--e,e -
w --=====.= +=
=e--
. _ _ aumme=== w --
e
.. - =...... -....
Notes 1.
Aging was not previously considered, however, an analysis will be performed.
2.
An environmental analysis for outside primary containment HELB accidents is being conducted and is acheduled for completion by April 10, 1980.
3.
Radiation was not included in original qualification tests, however.
an analysis will be performed. Radiation Tls at the device will be determined.
4.
Pressure was not included in original qualification tests, however, an analysis will be performed.
5.
Relative humidity was not included in original qualification tests, however, an analysis will be performed.
6.
Operating Time Specification will be identified later.
7.
Limitorque is researching qualification of actuator.
8.
These limit switch I will be replaced with NAMCO EA-740 limit switches.
9.
This equipment will be replaced.
10.
ASCO will be requested to supply applicable documentation.
11.
This equipment will be relocated.
12.
13.
GEC0 has been requested to provide documentation or perform an analysis for this equipment.
14.
Letter has been sent to Cutler Hammer requesting documentation.
15.
Comsip Delphi has been requested to supply documentation (10/4/79).
16.
An analysis will be performed.
17.
ASCO solenoid valve will be replaced.
18.
Limitorque actuator motor will be replaced.
The environmental qualification values listed for this actuator do not apply to the drive motor.
19.
Limitorque actuator will be inspected to verify that components are nuclear In-Containment grade.
20.
Limitorque actuator will be inspected to determine if intermittent gear franse is bronze.
Zinc or aluminum gear frame assemblies will be replaced with bronze gear frame assemblies.
21.
Johnson Controls will.be requested to supply applicable documentation.
22.
American Air Filter will be requested to supply applicable documentation.
23.
Dwyer will be requested to supply applicable documentation.
24.
- 11. K. Portor will be requested to supply applicable documentation.
25.
Target Rock Corp. will be requested to supply applicable documentation.
26.
See specification documentation reference.
27.
Tabic C-1 of the DOR Gu?delines indicates there is no known radiation degradation below 1.0E4 rads.
28.
A comparison of the materials used in this device with those listed in Table C-1 of the DOR Guidelines indicates there is no thermal degradation for the conditions to which this equipment is subjected.
29.
The equipment has been relocated to a benign environment area and no additional review will be included under the scope of IE Bulletin 79-OlB.
30.
A modification will be initiated to eliminate the ESW differential pressure switches (Dwyer 1627-1) and the Agastat time delay relays.
31.
The application of the G.E. CR 120 relays will 'ee modified to fail safe operation.
32.
This device contains no pressure sensitive components.
33.
Reliance Electric has been requested to supply applicable documentation.
Purchase order has been issued 10/9/80.
1 l
(3 s
a~-
6-e 9
'a 9
g p
8 5
APPENDIX C
LICENSEE EXCEPTIONS l
N 4
The following is a direct quote from the licensee's letter of October 31, 1980.
The conditions considered in our review are steam line break (SLB) or loss of coolant accident (LOCA) in primary contaiuoent and high energy line break (HELB) in secondary containment.
All Class lE equipment located in primary containment has been reviewed, and the results show that this equipment is environmentally qualified for a SLB or LOCA.
The Class lE equipment inside primary containment has been qualified to 3400F for the time period required to mitigate the effects of the postulated accidents.
Although all this equipment is required for only a short time, it has been qualified for a minimum of one hour.
All Class lE equipment located in secondary containment has been reviewed and documentation is available to support the environmental qualification for most of this equipment.
In addition to the systems which have a majority of equipment located in secondary containment, several additional systems with equipment that is located primarily outside containment is available to mitigate the effects of the postulated accidents.
Those systems' include Condensate /Feedwater High Pressure Service Water and Control Rod Drive.
These systems could be used in conjunction with the Safety Relief Valves to achieve safe shutdown during post accident conditions.
The LOCA and HELB temperature analyses used to generate the temperature profiles for our review are based on assumptions which include loss of normal ventilation, a three hour linear decay of heat rejection from all normally operating plant equipment, continuous heat rejection from all safety related equipment, and an initial 950F outside air temperature coincident with the postulated accident.
The HELB accidents considered in our review are listed below:
1.
Main Steam Line Break 2.
HPCI Steam Line Break 3.
RCIC Steam Line Break 4.
Feedwater Line Break 5.
Reactor Water Cleanup Break A review of the LOCA and HELB temperature profiles for the HPCI, RCIC, RHR, Core Spray and Standby Gas Treatment System equipment rooms indicates that the room temperatures are substantially below the normal operating design temperature limits.
Exception to this would occur when a SLB is postulated in the RCIC or HPCI equipment rooms because a steam line break would prevent the operation of the turbine driven pumps causing the respective systems to be inoperable.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the equipment in these rooms would be availabl under the postulated accidents except for the conditions stated above for the HPCI and RCIC rooms.
w-
~
L' o'
d t
The LOCA and HELB temperature profiles are based upon very conservative assumptions.
The HELB temperature profiles for the second.iry containment equipment rooms represent the worst case conditions which result f.om a particular HELB accident.
The HELB profiles are not the environmental effect of a single postulated accident, but rather, they are the effect of the spectrum of each of the postulated system line breaks.
This spectrum includes several break locatiors for each of the system line breaks.
The environmental specifications listed on the component evaluation work sheets l
for secondary containment are conservative because they represent the composite bounding conditions for the reviewed accidents.
Yhe HELB accident temperatures and pressures for a given room are not necessarily the result of the same accident and the radiation dose reflects the post-LOCA total integrated dose.
This basis for establishing environmental specifications results in further conservatism in our evaluation.
The effect of the peak HELB temperatures en equipment is mitigated by the short duration of the peak and by the heat t'raasfer characteristics of the construction materials resulting in lower effective peak temperatures.
A study is available to demonstrate that equipment temperatures due to HELB transients will not exceed the area saturation temperature.
Since HELB pressure transients exist for only a few seconds, equipment temperatures would not exceed 212oF which corresponds to the saturation temperature at atmospheric pressure.
Also it should be noted that our review indicates that equipment located in secondary containment need not maintain its pressure integrity with respect to ambient pressures and therefore qualification of secondary containment equipment for the HELB pressure conditions is not significant.
A review of the installed PBAPS Class 1E equipment application indicates that the equipment is of high industrial quality.
The design and purchase specifi-cations for this equipment were in accordance with applicable NEMA and IEEE industry standards which existed at the tim = af purchase.
Even considering the conservatism of the HELB analyses, it is estimated that Class 1E equipment ' inaccessibility due to the postulated accidents would be approximately 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> or less.
Therefore, we believe the ability to p.rform maintenance in a reasonable amount of time is an important factor in assessing the operability of equipment during post-ac ident conditions.
In conclusion, a failure-modes-and-effects analysis of the Class lE equipment required to mitigate the postulated accidents has been conducted in concert with the considerations identified above, and it is our judgment that the remaining items do not constitute undue risk to the public health and safety.
Philadelphia Electric Company has work which is &ctively in progress to resolve the outstandinc items as expeditiously as possible.
l n
,,m.,
e S
O' e
y
&
- e i
APPENDIX D
TMI MODIFICATIONS 1
1
. l
- - - - ^
~ ~
^ ^
~ ' ' ^
j'
- :. +~.
f,*l: } 6 { p p
, u pp
-The TMI modifications for Peach Bottom 2 are listed in this Appendix but'the component data sheets were not supplied by'the licensee.
Reference Appendix C.
for licensee' status on the TMI modifications effort.
1 t
I 1
e I
I i
l' g
I i
l I.
.,.n,
,-._,,.-.-_,,,_,,,,,,,-,,.,,.,._,,,.y--,,.e,.,,.,-r,-e.,...,w
dyr.dPlBP 3
?00R ORIGINAL.
~
~
Peach Bottc= Atc:ic Fe.er Statica Unit # 3 Class 12 Iqui? en Lis:
Systa=: 74I Modificaticx1 r,-. + 4,,,,
Iten Ic.uip.
Inside Cutside _W. Cast.
!!o.
D No.
Gene _-ic :*ane F-1.C:nt.
Roc 5 Accustic nonitor M97%h pct-2-71K' ser.sor
'I 1
M575 h pct-2-717.,
X i
.Roccbestos M575-5
?ss-6-110 cable X
I i
M578-1 57-9100 valve 523 M578-2 37-9101 257 i
M58h-1 P:'-9102A Press. Trs2s.
hhh
[
M584-1 Pr-9102C Ehh M58k-2 P:'-31023 250 M58h-2 Pr-9102D 250 M587-1 ar-9103A Rad. Men.
x M587-1
.E.91033 X
s M587-1
?2-9103c X
l M587-1
?2-9103D X
1
.u.
, e..
M537-2
?ss-6-Ick cable x
i e
t 1
1 1
e i
i e-e*,m.
I i
l
g.
e o
Pesch 3ctte: Atemic Pc.er Stati Unit M 3
j Class E Iqui?:ent rls-System:
"'9I Modifications
{
r 4,.. u,,.
ten Iquip.
Inside Cutside Fri. Cont.
No.
ID No.
Cand c :Ts=e F-1. Cont.
Rec Y Accustic =cnitor M575-1 PcAm-2-7CA c re-v.ro 257 l
l M575-1 PcAm-2-70'a 257 MS 5-2 Pcem-2-71A 25t M575-2 Fe/m-2-71B 257 i
M575-2 Pc/c-2-71C 25i o
I M575-2
?0/n-2-713 257
[
M575-2
?cA=-2-7E 257 M575-2 PcAn-2-717 257
[
M575-2
?cA=-2-71c 257' M575-2 Pob 71H 257 M575-2
'JoA=-2-71J 257 M575-2
?c>m-2-71X
_.0 257 1
M575-2 PcA=-2-71L 257 i
M575-3 P00-2-7CA Acenstic =ccitor X
j
-- w r i
675 1 pot-2 709 x
M575-h tot-2-71A X
MS 5 h pot-2-713 X
M575 h pot-2 71C x
M575-h pot-2-713 x
M575 k FoT-2-7 E X
M575 h Fa T-2-717 x
M575 h pct-2-713 x
a M575 h Fo T-2 -7U X
M575-4 pot-2-71J X'
e e=